All the rants raves and ramblings by Rhinoceroses Donkeys and Jackasses not fit to print
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Spitzer Versus The Poor
Im too tired and hungover...so all Ill say is that Eliot is a horse's ass.
Click ass
3 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Three hundred bucks to open an IRA? Sounds not worth the bother but I have to think more about this. Not sure where I am on this one, I have two conflicting opinions, honestly. As usual.
Its like when accountants charge fifty bucks to file a stupid one page EZ for a person- on one hand I say its kind of rude and they should tell them to save their money but on the other people knowingly pay it. I used to do taxes for weeks for free because I felt sorry for these people. Its hard to say- I'm not exactly clear on what the problem is, that they are in favor of only people with more money initiating IRA's? Like the tax example, the world is full of people who pay high fees for things, they make that choice. I guess I am not totally clear on Spitzer's problem? As a leftist though I'm supposed to be...
The poor will once again suffer because of ES. The fees do seem high if opening on the minumum and that is why they were self corrected without Eliot from 75 to 25.
The fact is that the poor save less disproportionately percentage wise than higher incomes, and all this will result in is for less financial services being available to them...which is a shame considering that Eliot will use this in his gub run as an example that he fights for the lil guys, yet in fact has closed yet another avenue (of the already few avail)for the poor to stop the vicious. cycle that they are in
How did Friday go? Did Anita make it? Do I even want to know what you did with her? She's so sweet. Shudder.
Anyway, here's where I have my hippie troubles. This is an example of where I am really waffly, go ahead and mock me and say I am contradicting myself and all that. I totally KNOW I do on money. My big problem seems to come down to my genuine desire to see fairness and justice especially for low income people but I also think that where it gets sticky for me compared to other liberals I know is on the aspect of personal responsibility. Take for example- the interest rate and mortgage issue. I think predatory lending is a terrible thing, BUT...BUT...I also think people want to act irresponsibly with their money and expect no or few repercussions of that behavior. How DARE they give me a high rate! How exploitive! Kind of thinking. We are not often talking about people who are struggling to buy homes that get screwed with a huge interest rate, we are often talking about people that have abused credit and equity NOT because of poverty but because of their materialism and desire to accumulate possessions. We are often talking about people that cannot get off their addiction to living way beyond what they can afford. People use plastic, get in over their head, then their lives turn to chaos. Do they say "hmm, I need to straighten this out, cut back, pay down my debt, etc." No. Very often they realize that some lender is willing to give them a loan ANYWAY...but for a price. Have their cake and eat it too? Hell yeah they say.
But to suggest that maybe they should learn a lesson is somehow anti-poor to liberals I know. They tell me I don't "get it" about loansharking and exploitation of the poor. I get it, I GET what they do. But I insist there is a role for the BORROWER in this mess.
THEY say that the LENDING company that charges high fees are always the bastards. Sometimes they are bastards, but sometimes people reap what they sow. Sometimes people get these rates because they filled their homes with crap and gadgets then did not want to pay the bills. Or they could not stop buying. What of those people? So I feel for all the people who are lied to, who have trouble with saving for retirement, and all that...my problem is with the way we never seem to blame the consumer anymore. Don't they have a role anywhere? Does that make sense? Long weekend, I'm tired and incoherent.
Click ass 
3 comments:
Three hundred bucks to open an IRA? Sounds not worth the bother but I have to think more about this.
Not sure where I am on this one, I have two conflicting opinions, honestly. As usual.
Its like when accountants charge fifty bucks to file a stupid one page EZ for a person- on one hand I say its kind of rude and they should tell them to save their money but on the other people knowingly pay it. I used to do taxes for weeks for free because I felt sorry for these people. Its hard to say- I'm not exactly clear on what the problem is, that they are in favor of only people with more money initiating IRA's? Like the tax example, the world is full of people who pay high fees for things, they make that choice. I guess I am not totally clear on Spitzer's problem? As a leftist though I'm supposed to be...
The poor will once again suffer because of ES. The fees do seem high if opening on the minumum and that is why they were self corrected without Eliot from 75 to 25.
The fact is that the poor save less disproportionately percentage wise than higher incomes, and all this will result in is for less financial services being available to them...which is a shame considering that Eliot will use this in his gub run as an example that he fights for the lil guys, yet in fact has closed yet another avenue (of the already few avail)for the poor to stop the vicious. cycle that they are in
I missed you on Fri
How did Friday go? Did Anita make it? Do I even want to know what you did with her? She's so sweet. Shudder.
Anyway, here's where I have my hippie troubles. This is an example of where I am really waffly, go ahead and mock me and say I am contradicting myself and all that. I totally KNOW I do on money. My big problem seems to come down to my genuine desire to see fairness and justice especially for low income people but I also think that where it gets sticky for me compared to other liberals I know is on the aspect of personal responsibility. Take for example- the interest rate and mortgage issue. I think predatory lending is a terrible thing, BUT...BUT...I also think people want to act irresponsibly with their money and expect no or few repercussions of that behavior. How DARE they give me a high rate! How exploitive! Kind of thinking. We are not often talking about people who are struggling to buy homes that get screwed with a huge interest rate, we are often talking about people that have abused credit and equity NOT because of poverty but because of their materialism and desire to accumulate possessions. We are often talking about people that cannot get off their addiction to living way beyond what they can afford. People use plastic, get in over their head, then their lives turn to chaos. Do they say "hmm, I need to straighten this out, cut back, pay down my debt, etc." No. Very often they realize that some lender is willing to give them a loan ANYWAY...but for a price. Have their cake and eat it too? Hell yeah they say.
But to suggest that maybe they should learn a lesson is somehow anti-poor to liberals I know. They tell me I don't "get it" about loansharking and exploitation of the poor. I get it, I GET what they do. But I insist there is a role for the BORROWER in this mess.
THEY say that the LENDING company that charges high fees are always the bastards. Sometimes they are bastards, but sometimes people reap what they sow. Sometimes people get these rates because they filled their homes with crap and gadgets then did not want to pay the bills. Or they could not stop buying. What of those people? So I feel for all the people who are lied to, who have trouble with saving for retirement, and all that...my problem is with the way we never seem to blame the consumer anymore. Don't they have a role anywhere? Does that make sense? Long weekend, I'm tired and incoherent.
Post a Comment